Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Oh, fine. I'll play with you tonight. I've decided that I have some time to actually care and rescue this shithole of a thread for a bit. I have no expectations that I can convince you of anything, but I would be very displeased to see your lies and insinuations unchallenged. See, I really want my country back from the fact-less people, the racists, the liars.

Word-thinking like that is a tell for confirmation bias. Your 3 assumptions about those you want to "take the country back from" shows that. Also you seem to have a hallucination about me being a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Your buzzword does not excuse you from explaining your actual meaning. Define what you're talking about with the "intellectualism" buzzword, eh m8?

Also, I must applaud you again for the amazing spin. You very much said here that there's literally no way to define what is an intelligent answer is in a debate, promptly allowing absolute free-standing opinions without justifications. Remarkable.

Having said so, allow me to demonstrate for the audience's curiosity by comparing two answers on the same subject as provided by Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump tonight; to wit, on the last and by far the easiest of all questions:

HOLT: One of you will not win this election, so many [should be "my" -- transcript mistake] final question to you tonight: are you willing to accept the outcome as the will of the voters?

CLINTON: Well, I support our democracy. And sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. But I certainly will support the outcome of this election. And I know Donald's trying very hard to plant doubts about it, but I hope the people out there understand: This electionís really up to you. It's not about us so much as it is about you and your families and the kind of country and future you want. So I sure hope you will get out and vote as though your future depended on it because it does.

As you can see, Secretary Clinton had the sense to offer a standard answer about how democracy is important, accepting the outcome, please vote, it's important, etc. Nothing wrong, and nothing spectacular.

HOLT: Mr. Trump, very quickly, same question: Will you accept the outcome as the will of the voters?

TRUMP: I want to make America great again. We are a nation that is seriously troubled. Weíre losing our jobs, people are pouring into our country.

The other day we were deporting 800 people. And perhaps they pressed the wrong button, they press the wrong button, or perhaps worse than that, it was corruption. But These people that we were going to deport for good reason ended up becoming citizens. Ended up becoming citizens, and it was 800, and now it turns out, it might be 1800, and they don't even know.

HOLT: Will you accept the outcome of the election?

TRUMP: I want to make America great again. Iím going to be able to do it, I donít think Hillary will. The answer is, If she wins, I will absolutely support her.

Note how Mr. Holt had to ask Mr. Trump twice to get the same affirmation? Rather than answering the question upfront, he first stated his slogan, attempted to continue his talking point about evil immigrants and jobs, deportation, and so on. Mr Holt pressed him -- asking for a basic answer of democratic affirmation Mr. Trump apparently has no care to give -- and he restates the slogan again, stubbornly, before being forced to concede an answer in conventional terms.

The disgusting mainstream media conventional wisdom that democratic power transitions should be legitimate and peaceful.

Sadly that was arguably one of the least representative answers, though it is the shortest. He was rambling far more throughout. Should I post the entire numbing section of Mr. Trump's angry rant about the Iraq War, namely that he did not support it [hint: he did, provably, caught on tape], and then concluded that angry rant with an attempt to claim that he had the superior temperament? It may be the first time, and certainly one of the very few times if it is not the case, that a presidential candidate in a formal debate stage drew uncontrolled laughter against themselves unprompted by their opponent (and against decorum).

People will forget Clinton's textbook stock-answer for the last question by tomorrow. Trump's answer however was given in such a roundabout way that made people think about it and more likely remember it.

Trump's answer is clearly the more intelligent one. See? Wasn't so hard. That which you consider the more intelligent answer is only that way for people who not only have the same views as you, but also use the internet for such detailed answers. The "normies" who watched the debate, maybe watch the pundits speak for 2 minutes afterwards and then turn the TV off won't give a damn about the deep, but biased analysis you made.

And by the way, "cognitive dissonance" is identified based on "tells" that you wrote, like starting a sentence with "LMAO" and such things. So it's not really a buzzword.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Stop lying. It is quite well documented that Five Thirty-Eight's models did not evaluate Donald Trump's chances inaccurately -- they remained largely accurate throughout, especially in their use as a tool to aggregate wider poll data into representative information (which means the tools are only as good as the data, ultimately) -- but rather that Nate Silver, in his capacity as a political pundit (as opposed to his capacity as a statistician) questioned the conclusion of Five Thirty-Eight's own models given his personal evaluation of Mr. Trump's shockingly poor personal character and, accordingly, his appeal to Republican primary voters.

He has since admitted to the mistake, as befits a human being with more capacity for self-reflection than Mr. Trump. Clearly he underestimated the racism, hatred, and ignorance of segments of the American voting public.

No, he did infact tweet complains against Trump voters for contradicting his models back in May (I think it was around the Acela Primary when Trump's victory went beyond all expectations) but he deleted the worst one shortly after.

And yet again you are hallucinating. You are accusing an unspecified amount of voters among Trump 14 million primary voters of racism, hatred and ignorance, just because they don't agree with you. I repeat, you accuse a huge amount of people you have never met of having a certain collectivist world-view, an unhealthy outburst of emotion and a lack of knowledge.

Or in other words: You are hallucinating it.

When I started arguing with you I said nothing other than that you have a ton of cognitive dissonance. And your first response was to picture me as a reader of various right-wing newspapers. That was a hallucination as well. For someone who dares to call others ignorant and racist, you sure like to make claims about people you do NOT know anything about. Just based on political views you are fitting the people into your favorite racist, sexist, xenophobe, everything-phobe patterns. You don't seem to care about facts in those moments at all.

My personal guess is that your confirmation bias allows you be intolerant toward those you deem to be intolerant and they therefore, according to your views, don't deserve the same respect as the people of color you demand respect for. But I could be wrong. And, frankly, I hope I am wrong on this. Because it would mean you give up your so-called objectivity for a little emotional outburst and I think any country would better off without the "help" of such a person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irenicus

From what exactly, hmm?

First you used pundits to improve credibility to your original claim that Trump lost the debate. After I pointed out the lack of credibility for the media pundits based on how they failed in the primaries, you played the "spin" card. And now you are even feigning ignorance... Do I have to say any more than this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Trump has a long history of saying dubious things. From knowing 'many people' to being able to drop Mitt Romney on his knees for endorsement there are all kinds of statements that he left up to others to interpret them and more often than not he doesn't clarify afterwards. This statement was very suggestive at the time he made it and even if it was just a joke gone bad it would still be a terrible joke.

No it was not. No one even seriously thought about it until the media parroted the assassination interpretation of what he said over and over on their panels. I heard of no actual attempts of assassination on Hillary. Meanwhile Hillary's rhetoric about Trump supposedly being an everything-phobe seems to motivate people to call for Trump's assassination all the time on twitter. One crazy guy ran toward Trump's stage at one rally and another guy actually tried to steal a policeman's gun to actually shot Trump with at another rally. You are really grasping at straws here. It's nothing but confirmation bias.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

The sounding prepared and measured is part of that intellectualism. Hillary doesn't just appear intelligent, she actually is. She's corrupt but not incompetent as proven by her political career, which if you'll allow me to remark, Donald Trump has none of. The definition of 'intelligent' answers isn't exactly rocket science either. It's something that takes into account the situation with its relevant variables while trying to provide a realistic solution. On that front Hillary is far and above Trump.

And I guess when I start talking about Trump's success in the primaries with the most efficient campaign and highest amount of votes in a GOP primary ever (that with a record number of GOP candidates), I guess you will answer with "racist GOP", "dumb luck", "bad GOP candidates" or the dumbest one, a conspiracy theory: "Dems helped Trump win the nomination by voting for him so Hillary can win against him later". It could not possibly be because he is actually skilled at this, no?

I'm not from the US, but have been following this election anyway with curiosity. Clinton looked much better I than expected! I think it's going to be a close match.

Don't really like this debate format, moderator guy presses for "details" then gives them 2 minutes to talk, lol. Is it really possible to unravel the left vs. right approaches to economics in that time to the uninitiated? Of course not. Best you can do is come up with zingers like "Trumped-up trickle economics!" and "Tremendous regulations!" Neither of their plans is wrong, just different, so I guess even if given time, they couldn't win here.

Most of the following questions seemed like non-issues that get spun by the media for drama but don't really matter, like Trump's birther theories, taxes, and what he said a long time ago about the Irak war. All such questions seemed to fall on Trump, even though Clinton could be bullied with similar nonsense as well...she and the Clinton foundation are not without their baggage...so Trump was definitely at a disadvantage from the beginning.

But overall, Clinton looked better, just more confident and polished, whereas Trump is just kinda being Trump, yelling, interrupting, and rambling. Maybe some people like that kind of thing and see it as him being "genuine", but to me it wasn't a very good impression.

Clinton had some problems too, like how she was boasting about her transparency while having serious issues with that herself. Telling people to go to her website for fact-checking earned a chuckle from me. Then the race-bait, listing all the things where minorities are treated unfairly, and accusing Trump of racism...none of it holds up. Maybe she can get some minority votes this way, but at the same time she's losing votes from people tired of that shit. I'd say if you want to fix race relations, first stop throwing out racism accusations so frivolously.

No it was not. No one even seriously thought about it until the media parroted the assassination interpretation of what he said over and over on their panels. I heard of no actual attempts of assassination on Hillary. Meanwhile Hillary's rhetoric about Trump supposedly being an everything-phobe seems to motivate people to call for Trump's assassination all the time on twitter. One crazy guy ran toward Trump's stage at one rally and another guy actually tried to steal a policeman's gun to actually shot Trump with at another rally. You are really grasping at straws here. It's nothing but confirmation bias.

How dare journalists interpret a statement that was deliberately left vague and suggestive. Meanwhile the two incidents you are recounting are caused by Hillary calling out Trump as an 'everything-phobe'. There is no real reason to believe they are connected but obviously they are because of your, -gasp- confirmation bias.

It is very ironic that you are not above your own buzzword.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreyZone

And I guess when I start talking about Trump's success in the primaries with the most efficient campaign and highest amount of votes in a GOP primary ever (that with a record number of GOP candidates), I guess you will answer with "racist GOP", "dumb luck", "bad GOP candidates" or the dumbest one, a conspiracy theory: "Dems helped Trump win the nomination by voting for him so Hillary can win against him later". It could not possibly be because he is actually skilled at this, no?

Skilled at ... what exactly? It can't be politics because he has literally nothing to show for in that regard. It can't be business because he is not a successful businessman. It can't be being well informed because he's averaging a falsehood every 3 minutes and 15 seconds in his speeches. It can't be visions because he has repeatedly refused to give clarification how exactly he is going to implement all the change he loudly announced. It can't be his charm because he has insulted pretty much every demographic to think of.

But if it is none of that, what is left for Donald Trump to be skilled at? There is one thing left for him and that is spearheading a movement that was originally based on the justified frustration with the class politique but has long passed that point with Trump fanning the flames wherever he can. Trump knows what a fire extinguisher looks like but has no idea where to get one.

Trump is an entertainer but we don't need an entertainer. We need a president.

Clinton easily won this debate and Trump utterly disqualified himself. However, it won't matter to Trump's core voters.

The only realistic answer. Debates matter less than people more involved in politics (like us or the media) think. Hillary always gives solid debate performances, so going in without much prep as Trump apparently did was foolish. You'd think he would have learned something from Bernie's initial debate performances. You either prep to combat her properly, or get overrun with polished answers and debate tactics.

So my personal opinion is that this one, like most first debates, is a wash. The next debate will tell America if last night was a fluke or not.

The only realistic answer. Debates matter less than people more involved in politics (like us or the media) think. Hillary always gives solid debate performances, so going in without much prep as Trump apparently did was foolish. You'd think he would have learned something from Bernie's initial debate performances. You either prep to combat her properly, or get overrun with polished answers and debate tactics.

So my personal opinion is that this one, like most first debates, is a wash. The next debate will tell America if last night was a fluke or not.

Hillary's performance when it comes to debating is not really in question. She will literally say anything just to get elected. The things she says aren't exactly what she will do once she's in office (that applies to most politicians anyway).

I personally think that Trump did good early on, but he looked really weak later on.

I was expecting him to tackle those emails, fishy immunity deal, the destruction of blackberries with a hammer, lost laptop in mail... and other crazy things Hillary did to obstruct justice.

Hillary's performance when it comes to debating is not really in question. She will literally say anything just to get elected. The things she says aren't exactly what she will do once she's in office (that applies to most politicians anyway).

I personally think that Trump did good early on, but he looked really weak later on.

I was expecting him to tackle those emails, fishy immunity deal, the destruction of blackberries with a hammer, lost laptop in mail... and other crazy things Hillary did to obstruct justice.

That's why I'm more interested in the next debate than I was in this first one and don't really think it matters if anyone won. I looked at this more as a note taking session for both sides. These things go back and forth. Obama's first debate against Romney was a disaster, if I remember correctly, but Obama demolished him later on.

The next debate will be in a town hall format. We can expect it to be brutal for both candidates in normal time, but I expect nothing different from Trump if not worse considering that the Commander-in-Chief Forum was close to that and yet Trump made a glaring mess out of it.

the most interesting thing about the debate happen after the debate. When Trump went after the former Miss Universe. You would think after the khan debacle, trump would have learn not to get side track.

the most interesting thing about the debate happen after the debate. When Trump went after the former Miss Universe. You would think after the khan debacle, trump would have learn not to get side track.

Hillary dug a big hole and Trump jump right in.

Not really, he was asked the same question (about his past record on calling woman) in primary, and he also answered the same as back then. It's not something new

Even if it does, it will be just like the primary, where it served Trump rather than harm. Where the narrative of "disrespecting toward woman" is specified down to "personal hatred toward an individual woman". Which is much easier to sympathise

There is a reason why he prepared it as his answer

Edit, Secular Talk video on the debate, think it's very close to mine:

That's why I'm more interested in the next debate than I was in this first one and don't really think it matters if anyone won. I looked at this more as a note taking session for both sides. These things go back and forth. Obama's first debate against Romney was a disaster, if I remember correctly, but Obama demolished him later on.

So my question is if he starts heading lower, should he participate in anymore of the remaining debate? Same question apply if he starts heading upward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by risingstar

Even if it does, it will be just like the primary, where it served Trump rather than harm.

No, it will not be like the primary. National audience is a bit larger and bit more diverse than a Republican primary audience. Of course, it doesn't apply to the people who has already made up their mind.

__________________

Kudara nai na!Sig by TheEroKing.Calling on all Naruto fans, One Piece fans, and Shounen-fans in general... I got two words for you: One-Punch Man!Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.

So my question is if he starts heading lower, should he participate in anymore of the remaining debate? Same question apply if he starts heading upward.

No, it will not be like the primary. National audience is a bit larger and bit more diverse than a Republican primary audience. Of course, it doesn't apply to the people who has already made up their mind.

But the target audience (woman) does not change. In fact the Republican is slightly less tolerant when it comes to insults. But agree that it's easier just to wait on poll.

I don't think he gonna skip out on debates regardless whether he win or lose on the polls. The only scenario I could see is if he win by like 20-30 points across all swing states, and prefer to play safe (the same reason why DNC limit debates in primary). Otherwise there is much to gain in debate, especially for the challenging party.

I was expecting him to tackle those emails, fishy immunity deal, the destruction of blackberries with a hammer, lost laptop in mail... and other crazy things Hillary did to obstruct justice.

Because he can't. Because anything he can accuse Hillary on, Hillary can pin something much worse on Trump immediately. Because Trump would rather his own supporters ignore his much bigger scandals, so he can't bring up ANY scandals at all.